Posted: Sat 21 May 2011, 22:09 Post subject:
But isn't Puppy now based on Ubuntu?

Hi all,

Coming back to Puppy after a few years away as I want to install it on my netbook. Now I keep reading that Puppy is "built against" Ubuntu and therefore it's binary compatible with it. Now I'm not sure exactly what it means as an end user:

- Can I run and install .deb files?
- Can I add an Ubuntu repository?
- Can I install the latest Ubuntu mainline kernel and/or other drivers/modules?
- Can I get apt-get onto Puppy?
- Are *all* Puppy derivatives based on Ubuntu now? If not, which ones aren't?

I'll be grateful if someone could provide the above details. Thanks for your time!

The reason I started this was because I read a review on PUPPY. Almost the first thing from the reviewer was how he compared PUPPY against UBUNTU. How if you are doing a review you discuss the good and bad of a release of Linux. To start with you can download Lupu-5.25 in 15 minutes are less about 130 MB. Natty around 700 MB, and there about hour plus to download.

I can download Puppy burn a LiveCD and load it up and the other still downloading. Time from start of download to running OS 30 minutes are less. Puppy is written and compiled to be a small platform. All programs do not always work perfect and the desktop look is not the finest, but again it was build that way. I use a 8 year old system to one that is two months old. I can run almost every release of Puppy 2.14 top 7 to Lupu-5.25. I find some work better than others on all my system. The total is 9 differ systems with each a differ CPU.

Myself I use Puppy, Debian, LinuxMint Debian and sometime Win7. Believe it are not I almost went to Ubuntu Natty until they went the way of Unity. Again I can run Debian on all my systems

Never found a Linux release I hated. Just SOME I LOVE and some I just like.

Try running compiz effects in Puppy.
Try running a heavily DirectX-dependent 3D game in Wine on Knoppix or Puppy. Chances are, it will work half as often as it will in Ubuntu. I have gotten Aion, Shaiya, Talisman, both Left 4 Dead's, Black Ops, (I hate that game, btw) and Star Wars: Force Unleashed to all work flawlessly under Wine in Ubuntu. I've only had one or two 3D games fail to run under Wine in Ubuntu, while other distros never even have one work.

Well, I don't do games. I dislike Wine strongly and only use it for four minor programs in a sandbox-like compartment. I certainly don't do Direct-X which is one of the most dangerous components of Windows. So I have no personal experience with any of these.

The very existence of Wine proves the superiority of Windows. However, having said that, Wine is Wine. The same version of Wine should work exactly the same in Ubuntu, Knoppix and Puppy. According to the Wine developers there is no difference in how Wine works in various distros.

I find it more than curious that you would attempt to demonstrate the superiority of a Linux distro by how well it runs Windows programs. Odd. This is exactly the same as saying Ubuntu is better because it can run Microsoft Office under Wine better than any other distro.

Running compiz effects? Compiz with compiz effects is installed by default in Knoppix so I looked at it and played with it a bit. Not impressed. As far as Puppy goes, this is a matter of comparing a 120GB distro to a 650GB distro. I know my graphics card/driver can handle compiz with effects but this is a relatively large install for Puppy, at least 22MB and probably more. This is about a two-hour download for me on dialup so I don’t think it’s worth my time and effort to install it just to demonstrate how easy it is. I can’t see that I would ever have any use for it. However, I am certain that compiz effects can be run on Puppy as others have done it in the past.

Also, Wine on Puppy has a very old version of DX and has trouble with some 3d games.
And the fact that you just called Windows superior to Linux completely negates the legitimacy of anything you could possibly say. The only reason why we have Wine is because 90% of computers are Windows, so all the software is made for it.
Also -- going back to Ubuntu vs Puppy -- Puppy appears to only support up to 3gb of ram, and 4 processor cores.

How can you possibly speak so highly of Winblows, yet be all like, "hurr durrr, DirectX is gayy, derrpppp." How hypocritical.

It appears that you hate Ubuntu because it's popular and there are a lot of newfags who give other Linux users a bad name. I'll agree with you there, but it's utterly idiotic to say that Ubuntu is the worst Linux distro, or anywhere near the bottom of the barrel.
Stop being a hipster.Last edited by sheepy on Mon 23 May 2011, 10:42; edited 2 times in total

Debian now comes on five or six DVD's. How many DVD's does it take to hold Ubuntu? Name one specific task Ubuntu can do that Knoppix can't do... or that Puppy can't do.

Okay, what the f***. You advocate Debian's huge .iso file, then bash on Ubuntu because it's small, but then say these other -- even smaller -- distros [puppy] can do everything either one of them can do.

You're making obvious contradictions. You're a troll, and a good one, I might add. Either you're trolling, or just lacking a significant portion of your brain.

Bernie_by_the_Sea wrote:

Ubuntu is certainly not the most commonly used Linux distro.

Troll. Detected.

Bernie_by_the_Sea wrote:

There is no Linux distro that can do everything Windows can do. The drivers and apps just don't exist.

I have never failed to get a Windows app to run under Linux in either Wine or a VM.

Most importantly, you keep saying all Linux distros are the same and can all do the same thing, so by that logic, what makes Ubuntu so inferior? It should be the same as the rest, remember? Despite the fact that it's frequently updated, and tasks that would normally take hours in other distros can be done in seconds on Ubuntu.

This is really a stupid statement.
A buyer of a PC has almost no other choice then to by it with windows on it.
That doesn't prove superiority.
Microsoft with it's 'special marketing techniques' didn't leave much choice for the HW manufacturers and thus for the potential buyer.

It is well proven that the microsoft products are inferior when one thinks of vulnerability.

Also to run Windows PC's have to be bigger and bigger.
Not so the case for f.e. linux distro's like puppy._________________Time savers:
Find packages in a snap and install using Puppy Package Manager (Menu).
Consult Wikka
Use peppyy's puppysearch

10 years back when I finally realized that any OS is installed on a drive and should be able to migrate from machine to machine (like DOS used to be) then I realized that computing was going down hill. That is MS was selling OS's per machine. I didn't know about Linux (other than an occasional mention)

I tried Ubuntu 10.10 for awhile on an older machine and found it enlightening, but cumbersome, point and click, yet confusing, and always refusing me permission to do things (worse than windows)

When I discovered Puppy I knew I found it. Old style computing that gave me control over the machine again, and also with plenty of help screens explaining things like boot loaders. Ultimately I was able to learn more in 6 months of using Puppy then I learned in 15 years of using Windows or Ubuntu.

At present I have Puppy installed in at least 7 different drives.

I have a main laptop used for work
on it is a copy of ArtistX (UbuntuStudio 10.04)
and a copy of PuppyStudio3.3rt
I have remastered a live CD of PuppyStudio to my liking and have installed it on various USB drives and PC hard drives

I flip to ArtistX whenever I need a lot of extra applications (especially video). It also has advantages in hardware choice, such as choosing the default soundcard.

But the workhorse is Puppy. No need to back it up. If the hard drive in my laptap goes, just pop in one of my USB drives (or sticks) and it runs equally as fast. You can't beat that. And you have to appreciate Puppy Studio on the level that only applications that really function well are included. ArtistX has lots of video editors and only one (openshot) is really reliable (to my experience so far)

So both systems have advantages. The great thing about Linux systems is they can be used side by side so easily.

Both Puppy and Ubuntu have a following, as evidenced by the many derivative distros that have arisen from both, such as MacPup, Muppy and Minipup ("puplets") for Puppy, and Xubuntu, Lubuntu, Kubuntu, and Masonux for Ubuntu Linux. However, Ubuntu, the most commonly used Linux distro, according to Distrowatch.com, will seem easier to use for most new users. Its appearance and graphical interface is more similar in function and style to a Windows operating system than Puppy's. Most new users will gravitate to Ubuntu, given this choice, unless older hardware dictates a slimmer operating system, in which case Puppy Linux would be a great choice

The differentiation between “new user” and “experienced user” is quite common when comparing the suitability of Linux distributions for different users, but I want to offer a different perspective.

Let’s consider car drivers. Do drivers have a tendency to deal with nuts and bolts as they become more experienced in driving? No. Most experienced as well as new drivers do not care about nuts and bolts. They just want a car to take them where they need without having to deal with its mechanics.

I think the assumption that a computer user will become more interested in understanding and tweaking her operating system as she gets more experienced is wrong. Most Windows users, which are the 90% of computer users at present, don’t have a clue about how the system works and are not concerned about. And may be rightly so. They have other interests in life.

I dealt with this question yesterday. A good friend of mine wants to remove Windows XP from his old computer and is looking for a suitable Linux distribution. I am very enthusiastic about Puppy Linux, but as he explained what he needs this computer for (his wife will be watching movies and doing some work on it), his free time - none - and his computer literacy - null, as myself -, following my experience with different distributions (not very extensive, but I did try during the last couple of years Debian, OpenSUSE, Linux Mint and Xubuntu before Puppy), I had to say that the most suitable distribution for him on his 512 RAM machine is Xubuntu. Extremely friendly as all the Ubuntu family, and the Xfce desktop works great with that memory.

Puppy is fantastic for people interested in exploring the system and trying things out, because it is so accesible and open when compared to other OSs. Like a bicycle (well, may be a motorcycle) where everything is exposed compared to a sophisticated motor car. But it is not as convenient as Ubuntu for a person who just wants to push a button and go.

So, rather than “experienced” vs “new user”, I would say Ubuntu serves better people who just want to use a computer without worrying about the machine’s mechanics, while Puppy is great for users who also have an interest in understanding how the machine works.

Okay I maybe is not the typical user at all. But I fail to see Ubuntu as friendly or easy to use.

Extremely unfriendly and almost impossible to use. Linux Mint was more friendly and a bit easier.

SuperOS was very much more Friendly due to them already included what took month to learn to add to the Ubuntu install.

But only puppy allowed me to install without shrinking the partition and such.

Ubuntu wanted to do full install unless one used WUBI.

Wubi tended to break when Ubuntu wanted to do automatic upgrade.
One had to find the WUBI version of the upgrade instead.

Nope Ubuntu is only friendly for somebody accepting their way of doing things.

Puppy due to frugal install dual booting without any need for to do a partition and reusing the same partition that Ms Windows already are on was extemely easy to add to a WinXP. More difficult if one had Vista orWin7 but that works nowadays.

Ubuntu had nothing like that so it is not friendly at all. Very unfriendly._________________I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though

Linux Mint and SuperOS are both second generation Ubuntu. I liked Linux Mint a lot and noticed the couple of improvements over Ubuntu. The problem with it was that for my machine with 512mb RAM the main version (Gnome) was a little bit too heavy. In fact it was only because their Xfce version was delayed (the main Xfce developer's wife was hospitalized, I remember reading in their forum at the time) that I tried Xubuntu 10.10 instead, and liked it very much. I didn't try SuperOS, but by its using Unity 3D I guess it will be too heavy for a 512mb RAM machine, which is also my friend's machine memory. Thanks anyway for reminding me, I might advice my friend to try Linux Mint Xfce instead of Xubuntu, though in my experience the differences were not so big. I don't know about Linux Mint Xfce rolling on top of Debian, it appears to be very economic on resources which is very good, but I am afraid a rolling version might cause desalignments my friend will be at a lost to solve.

As for problems with dual booting, I don't have any experience with Xubuntu because I used it alone on my machine. Yet, I did have a not so pleasant experience with Puppy saving the pup_save to hard disk alongside with Windows on the NTFS (Windows) partition: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=68731. Anyway, for my friend this is not a problem because he wants to remove Windows and dedicate his machine to a Linux distro.

I did run into another problem with Puppy, trying to install an HP printer, for which Lucid 5.2.5 has not a suitable hplip driver and therefore cannot be installed in it: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=68776. This is why I moved to Wary 5.1.2 for which there is a suitable hplip driver. Later on rcrsn51 confirmed in a PM to me that this specific printer does need an hplip driver which at the moment was not available for Lucid 5.2.5.

All in all, in my short experience till now, I did have to invest more time and effort to learn and customize Puppy than I had to learn and customize Xubuntu. And this is what I mean when I say the Ubuntu operating systems are more friendly to new users than Puppy. The point is not flexibility (a typical a newcomer from Windows will not be sure what you mean by that - remastering your system? what?) but how easy it is to start using the system and go on using it over time.

I personally enjoy the learning, and at present I mostly enjoy the lightness and fastness of Puppy, and I know very well that both, lightness (flexibility too) and learning, are intrinsically related. But not everyone is into it. I tend to think most users want their computer to do what they usually do with a computer, not to learn the operating system or to create one of their own.

most users want their computer to do what they usually do with a computer, not to learn the operating system or to create one of their own.

However, you then say that they actually get this from Xubuntu.

My experience is you don't get this from ANY distro. At some point, be it Windows, Puppy, Xubuntu or whatever their computer will not do what they want it to do.

When this happens they will go to their geekie friend or a dealer. These guys HAVE to learn the operating system in order to help.

Now, the question becomes which operating system would I recommend that ensures I get them coming back to me as little as possible? I don't know Xubuntu so cannot say anything about that.

Up until recently I would have said Ubuntu was possibly a good way to go because of the large number of users and help available. Now, with their recent changes (Grub2, Unity interface before tablets are the norm) and more in the pipeline I am not so sure.

Puppy has its prolems but once a geek sets it up for someone I think they can go away and use it and you will get little comeback.

I did run into another problem with Puppy, trying to install an HP printer, for which Lucid 5.2.5 has not a suitable hplip driver and therefore cannot be installed in it: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=68776. This is why I moved to Wary 5.1.2 for which there is a suitable hplip driver. Later on rcrsn51 confirmed in a PM to me that this specific printer does need an hplip driver which at the moment was not available for Lucid 5.2.5.

There are actually two choices for making your D1663 work in Lupu. Lluamco's full HPLIP print/scan package was always available here.

Greetings,
I got started in Linux with Puppy a couple of years ago. Have to say I use Ubuntu Natty as my regular Distro. I'm just a guy that needs Bluetooth to enjoy life. Fluppy has a rudimentary bluetooth working but that's about all I have found. Every Ubuntu I've used has bluetooth. Without proper interface to the outside world I don't get the point of having a computer.
tlcstat

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum